Saturday, December 06, 2008

AWT and double slit experiment

Double slit experiment (DSE or DSX) is an iconic experiment of quantum mechanics, because it illustrates well quantum delocalization and collapse of wave function phenomena and you can play with it in Java applet herein. While mechanical analogy of DSE exists already, the AWT explanation of DSE experiment is quite easy and it follows exactly the macroscopic experiment.

By AWT vacuum has a foamy structure of Aether density fluctuations and every object is moving through vacuum foam like boat or fish beneath water surface. Such fish creates a typical undulations of water surface - a ripples, which are always perpendicular to the fish motion direction. In quantum physics such undulations are called de-Broglie wave.

At the water surface, the surface waves are increasing a density of density fluctuations, thus leading into formation of turbulence. In vacuum, such shaking increases a density of vacuum foam in direction, by which particle is moving, so that the speed of light remains invariant for such object. From outside perspective we could observe a relativistic contraction of such object. This connection illustrates a close relation of quantum mechanics and relativity:

Note that the deBroglie wave propagates through vacuum by speed of light, it always advances particle location like ripples spreading from swimming duck. While pin-point particle cannot pass through both slits at the single moment apparently, its deBroglie wave can do that without problem under formation formation of typical flabelliform interference patterns.

Because every shaking makes vacuum foam more dense, the vacuum density becomes non-uniformly distributed around particle, when passing through double slit. This affects particle motion accordingly, because by AWT every particle consist of standing wave packet and it propagates along foam branes like wave. All waves are focused by more dense environment, so that path of particle motion prefers the directions of flabelliform patterns. At the case of repeated experiment, the particle traveling through random undulations of vacuum foam follows the wave interference patterns at target. Note, that such interpretation doesn't require mutual interaction of individual particles during experiment - path of particle spreading remains affected by interference even at the case, when only single particle gets involved into experiment.

Thank you for info - but "timelike" or "fixed-norm" "vector field" has nothing to do with Aether of Descartes era. After all, what Descartes could know about vectors?

Therefore such denomination just scrambles the whole Aether thing and it violates scientific priority of Aether concept by the same way, like every "string" theory, which is not based on string concept. If somebody is believing in "vector" or whatever else field - why not to call it by such way?

"Einsteinian Aether" theory is based on idea, Aether MUST exhibit a reference frame of motion to become observable by using of light as a source of drag, i.e. "vector field". And such Aether cannot be mixed with general relativity, because this theory was derived from inconsistent postulate set. After all, by this idea Aether was "disproven" by M-M experiment originally.

By AWT Aether doesn't require to have some reference frame at all, because no environment is observable by energy, which is using it for its spreading by definition. If some thing serves as a mean for observation, it cannot serve as a subject of this observation at the same moment.

Surely You're right. I've misunderstood some basics concepts about AWT. But, under my humble view, the fact, that the aether concept was recovered by the mainstream physics community, is very important.

By the way, What do you think about the new theory of gravity, which has been published recently? Among other things the authors claim:

"In this theory, an object is a mass density field in the fabric of space (FS) that satisfies mass–energy equivalence. In contrast with General Relativity (GR), the theory posits a preferred reference frame — namely the reference frame in which the FS is at rest."(...)"If the FS is quantized into discrete units, these singularities act on the FS to effect changes and interactions in mass density fields instantaneously. As a result, gravity acts instantaneously. We suggest that the 3 degree K cosmic background radiation results from kinetic energy released by the FS units. The theory then predicts that the rest mass of each FS unit is 2 proton masses and its characteristic length is approximately 2 mm."(...)"Finally, we show that the gravity theory makes possible a derivation of the Coulomb force."

I have a few questions for you:

Do you think this theory can be correct or it's crank? If the theory is correct, could you explain it using AWT?

By AWT no theory isn't crank at the moment, it contains at leas some logic in it due the correspondence principle. Because whole observable Universe is logical, the chain of logic cannot be interrupted in certain place from sufficiently global perspective. For example, even the apparently wrong Ptolemaic model has some physical meaning, albeit quite complex and counterintuitive one.

In addition, every theory of your personal preference can become a TOE providing it will be adopted to infinitely implicit scheme by fractal way of nested Aether foam. For example double relativity is more TOE, then single relativity.

It means, while the vector field concept has nothing to do with postulates of Aether theory, it still doesn't mean, it cannot be quite relevant in certain context by the same way, like string or LQG theory - it just shouldn't be called "an aether based" theory because of different postulate set. By AWT theories are defined just by their postulate sets and nothing else.

The absence of rigid postulate list makes problem in definition of subject of many string theories, for example. Here are many mutations of string theories, which are often providing a quite different results. For example, the dilaton version of string theory predict the ISL violation for gravity at low distance, while other version of string theory not - such theory cannot be validated as a whole, after then.

The interpretation of many theories may become more difficult, then the explanation of reality itself. This is why I don't like nested interpretations of reality. After all, as Einstein correctly stated, human stupidity can be more complex and infinite, then the Universe itself - so why to start explanation of Universe by former subject first?

Anyway, I believe, the concept of vector field has a robust interpretation in AWT as the source of Aether drag, which is the consequence of Universe expansion to light spreading. For example, the rotation of Earth makes a vector field around it (Lense-Thirring effect), because the space-time expands a bit, during light travel from the surce of rotation, this makes a vorticity field around Earth.

The same combination of Aether drag and expansion of Universe is probable source of toroidal clouds of dark matter observed around rotating heavy gallaxies and it's responsible for Pioneer anomaly and Allais effect, for example.

But the vector field is only one of many ways, by which such effects can be interpreted - even in context of AWT theory itself.

For de Broglie matter particles, there velocity is inversely proportional to velocity of wave related to it. This insight has a good meaning in dense aether model, in which the deBroglie wave behaves like the wake wave around boat floating at the surface or river. It makes the vacuum more deformed and as such denser around itself in such a way, the light speed remains constant. So that your insight could be expressed graphically with the following illustration. Now you can just think, how this insight will fit the situation of photon, which is supposed to serve as its own de Broglie wave in Copenhagen quantum mechanics. In dense aether model these two waves remain separated each other even for photon.